Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 08:23:36 +1000 (EST)
From: Christopher Mcmahon <Christopher.Mcmahon-AT-jcu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Re: machines


 Dear Alan,

You are just making trouble. Is your problem that you really
don't get it or that you don't like it? If the former, then you gotta help 
by trying. just try to enter into the spirit of these texts. If the latter, then why bother?

can't you imagine a world of machines where there is no
ontological elevation of life over matter qua distinction
between organic and non-living etc? can't you imagine a history where a
particular metaphysics did not lead to a particular ethics?

- Chris 

On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Alan Myouka Sondheim wrote:

> 
> 
> Two questions - if they reject the dichotomy, why side with one pole of it
> - the mechanistic? For from Joey on, that's the way I understand machines
> here. Second, if it can be described by what it does, isn't this a return
> to behaviorism/functionalism? And as such doesn't it return as well to a
> very problematic politics?
> 
> I'm honestly trying to understand this; I've read AO and have always felt
> very ill at ease with some of the modeling (for lack of a better word). 
> 
> Alan
> 
> On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, JONATHAN RUBIN wrote:
> 
> > Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 03:02:36 PDT
> > From: JONATHAN RUBIN <j_rubin-AT-hotmail.com>
> > Reply-To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> > To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Re: machines
> > 
> > 
> > Organisms also "produce" stuff; desiring-organisms "produce."
> > If anything will "date" AO and D/G it will be this, I think, this 
> > outdated reliance on mechanisms, metaphoric or not.
> > 
> > >Alan
> > 
> > The reason that D&G don't use a term such as "organism" is that for them 
> > an organism is a molar concept i.e. you can use it but by doing so you 
> > are obscuring/denying/invalidating a whole load of other processes - 
> > molecular ones. Likewise it is necessary to realise that they explicitly 
> > reject the whole mechanism/vitalism or organism debate as again relying 
> > on molar concepts that obscure the machinic nature of processes.
> > I'd also think that the whole is it a metaphor or isn't it is also 
> > ignoring two important points. Firstly as a consequence of Deleuze's 
> > naturalism what a thing is, can/is always sufficiently answered by a 
> > description of what a thing does - there is nothing more to say after 
> > such a description. So once you've described what these "things" do 
> > namely interupt, divert and channel flows then there is no question that 
> > these "things" are machines.
> > Desiring machines are productive, desire is productive, with that I have 
> > no argument at all.
> > But I think that it would be more accurate to speak of desiring machines 
> > not as prouducing flows (which smacks of the ex nihilo to me) but always 
> > of producing new flows. There are no flows without there being machines 
> > and likewise there are no machines except at the interstercies of 
> > flow/new flow.
> > 
> > Jon.
> > 
> > 
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> > 
> 
> URL:     http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/internet_txt.html
> MIRROR with other pages at:   http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt
> IMAGES: http://www.cs.unca.edu/~davidson/pix/           
>